Has the U.S. Presidency effectively become an “absolute monarch” in the modern era as the Presidential powers have expanded far beyond the scope envisioned by the Constitution’s framers? In this two-part talk law professor and author David N. Mayer shows how far we have departed from the Founders’ vision of a constitutionally-limited presidency, perhaps realizing during the 20th century Thomas Jefferson’s fear that the Chief Executive would become essentially an “elective monarch,” with unbounded powers.

In Part 1, David surveys the early history of the Presidency and what the framers of the Constitution designed the office to be. He also looks at how the early presidents (through most of the 19th century) actually excercised their power. Using Thomas Jefferson’s presidency as a model, Part one also discusses the key limits the Constitution places on presidential powers – or, as Jefferson understood it, how the president is “bound by the chains of the Constitution.”

BIO:

David N. Mayer is a professor of law and history at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, where he teaches courses in constitutional history. Mayer has a PhD in History from the University of Virginia. He returned to academic life after a law practice in Washington, DC. He has written books The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson (Constitutionalism and Democracy), published in 1995 and Liberty of Contract: Rediscovering a Lost Constitutional Right in 2011. See http://law.capital.edu/FacultyBio.aspx?ID=22633

1. Did the chapter contain anything surprising or that you didn’t know?

2. Was there anything you didn’t understand or had a question about?

3. Was there anything you thought was incorrect?

4. What did you think of Branden’s summary of the essentials of the Objectivist philosophy in (a) through (g). Is there anything you would add? Leave out? Say differently? (pages 1-2)

5. Do you agree that reason/rationality is the key element of Objectivism? Is it the key element for you? If not, what is? (page 2)

6. Does it seem odd that Esthetics is included as one of the 5 basic branches of philosophy and Science is not? Do we reason about Esthetics? (pages 3-4)

7. About those 5 basic branches of philosophy handed down from the Greeks, do you think we should continue to organize philosophy this way? Does the knowledge gained in the last 2,000 years all fit into this framework? (pages 3-5)

8. What is your impression of the story of the couple who broke up after an argument? Is it realistic? (pages 7-9)

9. Why was so much historical background included? Was it useful? (pages 10-25)

10. Branden says that the slogan of the Renaissance was “The right to see.” If Objectivism had a slogan, what would it be? (page 18)

11. If reason and freedom is so obviously better, as Objectivism says, why does, “The Platonist and irrationalist trend always keep growing…” Is there something that Objectivism is not accounting for? (page 20)

12. Branden states, “This culture is bankrupt.” That was 55 years ago. What is the state today? Better or worse? (page 25)

13. Rand often defines words differently from the norm. Is there anything unusual about Rand’s use of “objective” and “subjective”. (page 31)

14. Do you agree that people hold a subjectivist view subconsciously, “by implication, be default, by lack of knowledge and, quite frequently, by evading the issue”? Can you think of other reasons? (page 32)

15. What are your thoughts on the subjectivist quotations. Do you agree that they all mean and imply that there is no firm, absolute reality? (page 32)

“This may be true for you, but it is not true for me.”

“Everything is a matter of opinion, and one man’s opinion is as good as another.”

“You may be right, but I don’t feel it.”

“Wishing will make it so.”

“All our differences are a matter of semantics.”

“It will work, if people only want it to work.”

16. Are we to understand that Rand thinks everything can be objective and nothing is, or should be, subjective or that the subjective is not important or valid?

17. How does truth interact with consciousness and with time? (page 33)

18. Do you agree with Branden’s statement that, “It is logical that subjectivism does and has to lead, on a social level, to dictatorship”? Is it un-objective to want and exert power over other men? (page 34)

19. On page 3, Branden states that the purpose of this course is to “…organize our knowledge of the subject into an integrated structure, so that we can see how the various concepts interrelate, what conclusions proceed from what premises, and what constitutes the proof of our various principles.” How was this accomplished in this chapter?

If you plan to attend next Saturday but have not yet RSVPed, please do so by replying to this email. Thanks, Jackie

WHEN:
SATURDAY, August 17, 2013 7:00 PM Arrival Time

TOPIC:
Movie “If You Could Only Cook”

LEADER:
Jim Kirk

DESCRIPTION:
Jim writes, for our meeting on August 17th we will be trying something new. Earlier this year I saw the 1935 film, “If You Could Only Cook.” The movie is a light-hearted romantic comedy, the sort sometimes called a screwball comedy. The leading actors are Herbert Marshall as the president of an automobile corporation, Jean Arthur as an unemployed young woman, and, as a charming gangster, the young handsome Leo Carillo (those of us who are older remember Carillo from 1950’s television as the older portly Pancho in ‘The Cisco Kid’).

What I found interesting about the movie is that as I watched it, some of the characters and situations began to remind me of characters and situations from Ayn Rand’s fiction. However, in my IMDb research I have found no connection whatever between Rand and anyone involved with this movie.

We will watch the movie and then we can discuss what each of us sees there, if anything. I won’t give any examples so everyone can watch without any bias coming from me.

WHERE:
Jackie & Lyman Hazelton’s Home
480-516-3281
Use http://www.mapquest.com/ to get directions from your location.